Coincidence?

[Losmandris]

As far as I recall, there was no official reward offered until after the Miller's Court murder. A couple of weeks before the Double Event, a reward had been proposed by Whitechapel's MP, but it was turned down. George Lusk and company tried again in October, again without success.

East London Observer, 15 Sept: "Mr Samuel Montagu MP has offered a reward of £100 for the discovery of the Hanbury-street murderer, and his proposal has been submitted to the authorities for their sanction."

However, the authorities did not sanction it:

The Star, 2nd Oct: "Mr [Henry] Matthews [Home Secretary] has neatly tapped in the last nail in his political coffin by again refusing to issue the reward which the City authorities, the majority of the Unionist Press in London, and all sensible officials now favour."

The Star, 6th October, reports that the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee's bid to issue a reward had also been rejected, in a letter addressed to the Committee: "The Secretary of State for the Home Department has had the honour to lay before the Queen the petition signed by you, praying that a reward may be offered by the Government for the discovery of the perpetrator of the recent murders in Whitechapel, and he desires me to inform you that though he has given directions that no effort or expense should be spared in endeavouring to discover the person guilty of the murders, he has not been able to advise her Majesty that in his belief the ends of justice would be promoted by any departure from the direction already announced with regard to the proposal that a reward should be offered by Government."

Michael W Richards Which reward do you think Kate was referring to then?

Tristan

[packers stem]

How many Gustafsdotters in Spitalfields? How many Strides, for that matter? How many people had a long-term partner called Gustafsdotter/Gustafson or Stride? How likely was it that someone would randomly choose a pseudonym as uncommon as Gustafsdotter or Stride? How many people would even have heard of someone with those names?

Now, how many Kellys were there in that heavily-settled-by-Irish district? The rest follows...

Mary Kelly's?
because that is what we are talking about .....
about 6-8 from memory ,with some being too old or young to be a likely ripper victim

If someone appeared on casebook with the name Sam F Lynn I, personally, would suspect it was yourself or someone who wanted to use a similar name to you and cause confusion.

You ,I strongly suspect, would accept it as a complete coincidence

[JeffHamm]

Hi JeffHamm - well argued as usual. As you are aware, i do not subscribe to the Royal Conspiracy theory, so although the paradox you raise holds for that theory, that is not necessarily the result of establishing any connection between Eddowes and Kelly. The coincidence with the name and address used by Eddowes and Kelly's details is likely simply the coincidence you highlight, but still worth exploring just in case, in my view.

Hi etenguy,

Yes, it is certainly worth exploring as it is a startling coincidence. But let's say that Catherine Eddowes' use of the name "Mary Ann Kelly" or "Jane Kelly" was, in fact, due to her and Mary Jane Kelly having some knowledge of each other. What then? One still has to explain why Mary Jane Kelly was chosen by JtR as the next victim after all, and simply hunting down other people the last victim knew seems unlikely.

The usual argument is that JtR was actually in search of Mary Jane Kelly all along and he only kills Catherine Eddowes due to the mistaken identity. But that could be argued even if Catherine Eddowes' use of the names was entirely coincidental, their knowledge of each other is not critical, what is critical to the whole thing is that JtR is actually hunting for Mary Jane Kelly and Eddowes' is killed because of the mistaken identity that arises through her use of the alias "Mary Ann Kelly" or "Jane Kelly" (and presumably she uses these often enough for that to occur, despite any supporting evidence of her doing so). If JtR is not specifically hunting MJK, then whether or not Eddowes knew Kelly is irrelevant as the fact they were both victims becomes a coincidence.

So, whether or not Eddowes knows Kelly is not the important point, but whether or not JtR was hunting MJK specifically. If he's not, then neither of their selection as victims has anything to do with the name used.

Ok, so why is someone who doesn't actually know Mary Jane Kelly trying to hunt her down and mutilate her? (JtR obviously doesn't know Mary Jane Kelly otherwise he would not have mistaken Catherine Eddowes for MJK). What could a young prostitute living in Whitechapel have done that could result in some unknown assassin seeking her out to murder and mutilate her? That's where the Royal Conspiracy comes in, because without something like that, the whole notion that Mary Jane Kelly is a specific target of JtR despite JtR not actually knowing where she lives or what she looks like, etc, is that she's done something to anger a big powerful system that is now coming to get her. Without that, or something similar, it makes no sense that MJK is the target of a killer who doesn't actually know her, which is the whole notion behind why Eddowes was killed at all.

It also fails to explain why any of the other victims were murdered at all as they were not known for calling themselves something similar to Mary Jane Kelly. So somehow, they have to all be linked, and it requires that MJK be the major target, but the killer does not know MJK, only her name (and doesn't know where she lives, otherwise he would just go there in the first place). He also has at least Nichols and Chapman as separate targets since there's nothing to suggest they used Mary Kelly as names and that means, to suggest that MJK was the prime target of a killer hired by some powerful group to silence a threat then the minimum group is Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly as co-conspirators of some sort. Stride could be argued to not be a victim of JtR and Eddowes was killed as a case of mistaken identity.

And how do you link three people for whom there is absolutely no evidence that they are associated with each other? Well, in a grand conspiracy to bring down the monarchy through blackmail and secret weddings, and so forth is usually the case, and I think that just might be going beyond what the data can support!

Or, one considers the alternative, the murders were random, and the apparent one-off use of an alias (Mary Ann Kelly, Jane Kelly) that employs the person's partner's last name, and common first names, was coincidentally similar to the name of the final victim in the random series. No need for any of the victims to know anything about anyone else.

But once one starts to put a significance on the use of the alias "Mary Ann Kelly" as suggesting a reason for why Catherine Eddowes was killed in the first place, one has to argue that MJK was the intended victim. And once you do that, it all snowballs into la-la land pretty quickly in my view, which is why I end up opting for the coincidence interpretation in the end. Exploring something doesn't mean one has to accept it in the end after all.

Anyway, not sure how clear I'm being. Hope that makes some sense, and of course, you're not obliged to agree with my reasoning.

- Jeff

[packers stem]

She said she was going to turn in the killer for a reward, and I suspect on the night of her death she was trying to blackmail that same person, so she might have believed she had money coming in soon. They were Johns only boots after all.

Ever wondered what he had on his feet while working or at the identification or inquest ?

[packers stem]

I still don't see where the evidence is, that these two knew each other? How many thousand people lived in the area at the time? Statistically, the odds that any of these five knew each other must be minute.

Just because it makes for a good story or fits into some theory does not make it true. There is simply no real evidence. Until some is uncovered it must be assumed that they did not know each other.

Tristan

If we accept the telegraph report that Eddowes did occasionally sleep at the shed then we are left with all 5 living , up until a few weeks in any way, within 11 doors of each other on the same side of the street .

How's the statistics now?

All undoubtedly regulars at McCarthy's shop ,the horn of plenty etc.

Next time you see a photo of Dorset Street , look at what you see .

Do you see thousands of dossers packing the street or do you see women standing around chatting ?

It would be remarkable for them not to know each other

[Sam Flynn]

Was a reward being offered at the time?

As far as I recall, there was no official reward offered until after the Miller's Court murder. A couple of weeks before the Double Event, a reward had been proposed by Whitechapel's MP, but it was turned down. George Lusk and company tried again in October, again without success.

East London Observer, 15 Sept: "Mr Samuel Montagu MP has offered a reward of £100 for the discovery of the Hanbury-street murderer, and his proposal has been submitted to the authorities for their sanction."

However, the authorities did not sanction it:

The Star, 2nd Oct: "Mr [Henry] Matthews [Home Secretary] has neatly tapped in the last nail in his political coffin by again refusing to issue the reward which the City authorities, the majority of the Unionist Press in London, and all sensible officials now favour."

The Star, 6th October, reports that the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee's bid to issue a reward had also been rejected, in a letter addressed to the Committee: "The Secretary of State for the Home Department has had the honour to lay before the Queen the petition signed by you, praying that a reward may be offered by the Government for the discovery of the perpetrator of the recent murders in Whitechapel, and he desires me to inform you that though he has given directions that no effort or expense should be spared in endeavouring to discover the person guilty of the murders, he has not been able to advise her Majesty that in his belief the ends of justice would be promoted by any departure from the direction already announced with regard to the proposal that a reward should be offered by Government."

[Losmandris]

She said she was going to turn in the killer for a reward, and I suspect on the night of her death she was trying to blackmail that same person, so she might have believed she had money coming in soon. They were Johns only boots after all.

Was a reward being offered at the time?

Tristan

[Losmandris]

.... and a landlord who would have put them up on credit.

John was unlikely to wander without footwear.

Kate could go and do as she pleased.

This is a good point, slightly off track but what did John do without his boots? Did many people wander around the East End without shoes at the time? From all accounts the weather sounded pretty atrocious at the time, so they must have been particularly desperate or John was a particularly hardcase. On the other hand maybe he had easy access to another pair from a mate or something or he expected Kate to make the money back quickly so he would only have to go without for the day?

Tristan

[etenguy]

If she used those names frequently then obviously there would be more opportunities for JtR to misidentify her. We simply have no evidence that they were anything other than single use names. The lack of evidence that those were used frequently means it is just a hypothetical possibility, which means anything built upon that having to be true is built upon the shaky ground of assumption. Given that the name Kelly is entirely explainable due to her personal connection to her partner, and the names "Mary Ann" and "Jane" are both common names, and no evidence to indicate they were used by her regularly, the evidence we have points to a coincidence. Also, the idea that she used those names due to a connection with Mary Jane Kelly is derived from the notion they were involved in a conspiracy creates the paradox that if you're trying to remain secret, you don't make your connections obvious. That's how it looks to me anyway. - Jef

Hi JeffHamm - well argued as usual. As you are aware, i do not subscribe to the Royal Conspiracy theory, so although the paradox you raise holds for that theory, that is not necessarily the result of establishing any connection between Eddowes and Kelly. The coincidence with the name and address used by Eddowes and Kelly's details is likely simply the coincidence you highlight, but still worth exploring just in case, in my view.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

It seems that one conjecture is being used to prop up another conjecture.

c.d.

Ripperology in a nutshell!

[c.d.]

Kelly may have used an alias. If so, we don't know why. It could be for a fairly mundane reason.

We don't know for certain that Jack targeted Kelly.

It seems that one conjecture is being used to prop up another conjecture.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

A well argued post, JeffHamm, but the question that arises is whether she used these aliases more widely. I know of no evidence that she did, apart from the press reports that states she was known as Kelly (not unreasonably given she was shacked up with John Kelly).

What if she did though, and I suspect she did and likely repeated the same aliases since when aliases are used they tend to be re-used. We know from some present day criminals that they tend to re-use the same alias and some have been tracked down because of this. Clearly, if she did use the aliases more widely, it opens up the number of people who might have known her under those names. No proof of this, but given we know of two similar aliases in such a short timescale, it seems to me quite likely.

If she used those names frequently then obviously there would be more opportunities for JtR to misidentify her. We simply have no evidence that they were anything other than single use names. The lack of evidence that those were used frequently means it is just a hypothetical possibility, which means anything built upon that having to be true is built upon the shaky ground of assumption. Given that the name Kelly is entirely explainable due to her personal connection to her partner, and the names "Mary Ann" and "Jane" are both common names, and no evidence to indicate they were used by her regularly, the evidence we have points to a coincidence. Also, the idea that she used those names due to a connection with Mary Jane Kelly is derived from the notion they were involved in a conspiracy creates the paradox that if you're trying to remain secret, you don't make your connections obvious. That's how it looks to me anyway.

- Jef

[etenguy]

The Kelly portion of Eddowes' alias doesn't require there be many other Kelly's, given her partner's last name was Kelly. That name has a direct link to her personally already, so no need to look elsewhere. Mary Ann seems a common name, and shows up in victims (Mary Ann Nichols) and non-victims (Mary Ann Connolly). As a randomly chosen name, the combination is not unusual. Moreover, the only time she's known to have used it is when giving her name to the police to get out of the drunk tank. So unless JtR was there, in the police station, at the time she used it, there seems no way for JtR to confuse Catherine Eddowes, alias Mary Ann Kelly with Mary Jane Kelly. The changing to Jane Kelly, without the Mary, when she pawned the boots, also seems to be a name, used only once, that again we have to argue that JtR might then have been in the pawn shop to overhear this (if the name was even spoken aloud, she probably just wrote it on the ticket). So again, these singular instances of her using common names like Mary Ann or Jane, combined with her partner's last name, are known to us but there does not seem to be any possible way for JtR to have become aware of that information other than to have been in the police station or the pawn shop at the time she used them.

And again, if Catherine Eddowes knows Mary Jane Kelly well enough to use her name as an alias, which would be the case if they are in some conspiracy to blackmail the gov't along with the other victims, then again, it is impossible to conceive of at least one of them not mentioning that they knew the other victims. And giving the name of your co-conspirator to the police also seems a strange thing to do if you're trying to keep your association "hush hush".

While not denying it's a spooky coincidence, I just can't see any way for JtR to become aware that Catherine Eddowes used the name as an alias. And the idea is that she was killed because JtR thought she was Mary Jane Kelly, but for JtR to think she's Mary Jane Kelly JtR has to know she used at least one of those two names. But unless JtR was a policeman, or a pawn broker, or we can show she used one of those aliases regularly (which goes against keeping your association with a co-conspirator secret), then there's no way that JtR could confuse her with the later victim Mary Jane Kelly.

- Jeff

A well argued post, JeffHamm, but the question that arises is whether she used these aliases more widely. I know of no evidence that she did, apart from the press reports that states she was known as Kelly (not unreasonably given she was shacked up with John Kelly).

What if she did though, and I suspect she did and likely repeated the same aliases since when aliases are used they tend to be re-used. We know from some present day criminals that they tend to re-use the same alias and some have been tracked down because of this. Clearly, if she did use the aliases more widely, it opens up the number of people who might have known her under those names. No proof of this, but given we know of two similar aliases in such a short timescale, it seems to me quite likely.

[Sam Flynn]

The Coroner: "Had you been drinking when the pawning took place?"

John Kelly: "Yes."

Next witness—

Frederick William Wilkinson: "Kelly was not in the habit of drinking, and I never saw him the worse for drink."

There's no contradiction there. Plenty of people aren't in the habit of drinking, but that doesn't mean they doesn't have a drink, or even get a bit sozzled, on occasion.

How could he and Eddowes have been drinking before the pawning took place? They had no money.

They evidently raised some funds from somewhere, or bumped into a friend who treated them to a drink or two. Perhaps they weren't entirely bereft of cash anyway.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks Joshua - so that also means she had no reason to go and earn money through prostitution that fateful night either.

Well no, they still needed to pay the 4d each for their bed every night, but it seems they'd managed that for those 7 years at that same lodging house.